Unlocking Cellphones Illegal, Feds Still Unhappy

The real BS is if you pay full price for a phone off of somewhere like Newegg, Amazon or Google, the second you take that phone you own, no strings attached, that phone is locked to that carrier.
Once a phone is yours, it should be YOURS.
Carriers subsidize phones by loading so much BS bloatware onto them something that should be giving you 16 hours of battery life winds up giving you 3. Then you sign a contract and keep said phone for X amount of time, and when you upgrade, you get the contract extended, a new phone, keep the old one, and get an upgrade fee in the process.
Lovely right?
A law that locks a phone you paid for in full to a certain carrier should be illegal. It tramples your rights as a consumer and puts our asses one step closer to being owned by big business.
 
+1^
The carrier should NEVER be able to lock a phone that they didn't provide with it's inital contract.

And on another note. Make all the non-removable software removable when the phone is unlocked.
I have a Droid X that has madden installed on it (taking over 100MB) that I never have and never intend to play... That I can never get rid of. And verizon navigator and a few others... And I bought the phone outright :/
 
How are they locking off contract phones that you have purchased from 3rd parties? I have ATT and have used Tmobile as well. I used to travel to Europe a lot, and purchased unlocked phones for when I went there. Neither ATT or Tmobile ever locked a phone I have purchased 3rd party when I came back. I just slipped my ATT/Tmobile sim back in and change my mobile network back to my US carrier. In fact ATT unlocked my subsidized Captivate that I had only had for 3 months when I was due to go on another trip to hell, er, Europe.

If the phone is subsidized, I can certainly understand them wanting to keep that subsidized phone on their network. As long as they do not block rooting, or side loading, and give you the unlock codes for that phone when the contract is up, I see no issue with it. And that is what is currently happening. If you want an unlocked phone buy one, pay the full amount. Don't get a phone that carries a few hundred dollars in subsidies that comes with a 2 year locked to a carrier agreement and expect the carrier to let you out of the agreement.
 
Although it would reduce the size of the smartphone market it is probably time for the carriers to get rid of the subsidized model ... all phones should be required to be purchased by the user at their own cost (no more brand new $199 smartphones, only the $400-700 models) ... the contract should only stipulate restrictions on the user's service levels (limits on minutes, messages, data, tethering, etc) ... violation of the contract should then carry more stringent penalties (credit check mark or something) ... that would get around the whole unlocking problem (since it is reasonable to restrict what you do on the carrier's network but not on your phone itself, if you actually own the phone) ... since most people are not up to changing out SIM cards the carriers could still make lots of money from people traveling overseas and from out of network data charges ... it also simplifies the fee structures as there would be no difference between subsidized and non-subsidized rates (and since we have few carriers in the USA they could still preserve the pricing structures to ensure profitability) ;)
 
I bet if people had to buy the phones outright, we wouldn't see so many phones coming in at the $400-700 range. They'd be more like $200-300 with the same features.
 
Scythe5 said:
I bet if people had to buy the phones outright, we wouldn't see so many phones coming in at the $400-700 range. They'd be more like $200-300 with the same features.
Click to expand...

They will likely be lower quality at that price but I suspect you are right ... there is still a market for the 400-700 ones though (judging by the international sales of Apple, Samsung, and Nokia which are usually unsubsidized on those markets) ... I would rather have a more expensive phone with more features like high res screen and fast speed but I would upgrade less frequently if I paid full price (every 3-4 years instead of every 2) ;)
 
I think prices would come down on the $500-600 phones. Without the subsidies, the demand would go down a bit for those phones. The price would come down some to match. As things are, you can sell 18 month old, unlocked, high end Android phones for a premium. Used, unlocked, GNote ones are still going for $250 to 300 in good shape, and that phone is just shy of 2 years old now. You could definitely reach near parity with subsidized phone costs once you have the initial high end phone.

For example, I could sell a used, unlocked note 1 today for $300,and buy a new Note 2 or S4 for about the same money as I could just going on contract and getting a subsidized Note 2 or S4.

I hate the subsidized model myself, but I am not sure Android would have caught on as well or as fast as it did without them. I don't think Apple would still be on top, but I doubt they would have been relegated to such a distant second place as rapidly as they were, if not for subsidized high end Android phones.
 
SGA76 said:
The real BS is if you pay full price for a phone off of somewhere like Newegg, Amazon or Google, the second you take that phone you own, no strings attached, that phone is locked to that carrier.
Once a phone is yours, it should be YOURS.
Carriers subsidize phones by loading so much BS bloatware onto them something that should be giving you 16 hours of battery life winds up giving you 3. Then you sign a contract and keep said phone for X amount of time, and when you upgrade, you get the contract extended, a new phone, keep the old one, and get an upgrade fee in the process.
Lovely right?
A law that locks a phone you paid for in full to a certain carrier should be illegal. It tramples your rights as a consumer and puts our asses one step closer to being owned by big business.
Click to expand...

Huh?

When you buy an unlocked phone outright it doesn't get locked when you activate it. I've had multiple unlocked devices and used them with different carriers. I'm currently using an unlocked Nexus 4 right now.

However, if you take a subsidized phone from a carrier in fairness it makes sense for them to lock it in for the duration of the contract. Ultimately it's probably a bad deal for you, but it's not their job to look out for your finances, that's your job.
 
Grimlaking said:
That's how AT&T operates in the US at least. At no time was I under the impression that I was "renting" this phone.

Furthermore as long as I am not materially altering the device they have ZERO grounds for claim of damage especially if I put the phone back to factory standard before my "rental" is up. (Wow.. I can't even pretend that makes any sense.)

Seriously where did you get this you rent your phone crap. I think someone is shoveling a giant pile of crap on your plate and you're just asking for more please.
Click to expand...

That's fine, you own your phone, however you still are held liable for the entirety of the 2 year contract that you signed, where if you wish to break it and go elsewhere you will pay an early termination fee (often equal to the remaining cost of your contract)
 
sfsuphysics said:
That's fine, you own your phone, however you still are held liable for the entirety of the 2 year contract that you signed, where if you wish to break it and go elsewhere you will pay an early termination fee (often equal to the remaining cost of your contract)
Click to expand...

Further, contract pricing does not change if you bring your own device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top